Sports

Injury timeouts in tennis

Just give me a minute

VICTORIA AZARENKA, the world’s top-ranked female tennis player, had to fight more than just her opponent, Li Na of China, in the final match of the Australian Open on January 26th. The spectators in the Rod Laver Arena were so heavily in favour of the Belarusian’s opponent that, early on in the match, there was loud applause every time Ms Azarenka made a mistake—an abandonment of the custom of cheering only good play. The atmosphere of hostility appeared to affect Ms Azarenka, the defending champion, who began the match showing few signs of the dogged spirit that has propelled her to the pinnacle of women’s tennis. After losing the first set, however, Ms Azarenka played more like her usual self, and won an error-strewn contest by 4-6, 6-4, 6-3.

What prompted such overt partisanship was an incident two days earlier, during Ms Azarenka’s semi-final against Sloane Stephens, a 19-year-old American. Serving for the match at 5-3 in the second set, Ms Azarenka lost the game after squandering five match points. At the change of ends, she wrapped an ice-stuffed towel around her neck and requested medical assistance. After being assessed by medical staff, she then left the court for treatment, causing a total of nearly 10 minutes’ delay. Upon her return, Ms Azarenka broke Ms Stephens’s serve to win by 6-1, 6-4.

Tennis players are allowed to request medical timeouts for non-acute injuries at changes of end, or between sets. Once their injury has been diagnosed, they are then allowed three minutes of treatment. (A player cannot have two timeouts for the same injury during a match.) By contrast, timeouts for “acute” injuries requiring immediate assistance (such as falling during a rally and twisting an ankle, as Li Na did twice during the final) are permitted at any time.

Challenged about her timeout immediately after her victory, Ms Azarenka didn’t refer to any injury. But she did mention how nervous she’d felt towards the end of the second set. “I almost did the choke of the year,” she said. “I just felt a little bit overwhelmed. I realised I’m one step away from the final, and nerves got into me, for sure.” Many people understandably interpreted these words as an admission that Ms Azarenka hadn’t actually been injured, and had called the timeout purely for strategic reasons.

In a subsequent press conference, Ms Azarenka claimed that she had misunderstood the question, and that she had requested treatment because an injured rib was causing her back to seize up, making it hard to breathe. It was later revealed that she had also received treatment for an injured knee, accounting for the six minutes she spent being treated off-court. (The rules permit consecutive timeouts to be taken if two separate injuries are diagnosed.)

Ms Azarenka is only the latest in a line of players to be accused of gamesmanship in their use of medical timeouts. Whatever motivated her in this case, it is easy to see why players might be tempted to feign or exaggerate an injury in the hope of gaining an advantage. A player who is tiring can catch up to one with better stamina by securing a few minutes’ breather. Moreover, momentum shifts play an important role in tennis. Surrendering momentum to an opponent, especially towards the end of a set, can be highly demoralising and hard to reverse. When struggling players sense such shifts occurring, a timeout may give them crucial minutes to refocus, while potentially disrupting the ascendant player’s rhythm.

The problem tennis authorities face in preventing such abuse is trying to distinguish feigned injuries from real ones. Every so often, random chance dictates that players will happen to get hurt at a point when a timeout could also provide a strategic advantage. Medical staff, forced to make snap assessments, are unlikely to dispute a player’s claim to be in pain. Nor is it easy to imagine a workable system for retrospectively investigating whether injuries were genuine. The only obvious costs of taking unjustified injury timeouts are reputational: those suspected of bending the rules may lose public support, the respect of fellow professionals, and possibly endorsement opportunities. But given the huge financial rewards from winning top-flight matches, this isn’t necessarily an effective deterrent. If Ms Azerenka did indeed feign her injury, she might feel it was well worth it.

Scrapping on-court medical treatment altogether is not an option. If no system for receiving treatment during matches existed, there would be more retirements, as well as more cases of players carrying on despite genuine injuries. The former would harm tennis as a spectacle, while the latter would likely lead to more long-term lay-offs. A solution needs to be found that allows players to be treated for legitimate problems, while limiting their ability to cause strategically beneficial interruptions.

In the wake of Ms Azarenka’s semifinal Pam Shriver, a retired American player, suggested that timeouts should be limited to game breaks directly before the service games of players claiming they are hurt. Since players usually feel greater pressure serving than receiving, the argument goes, timeouts are more likely to disadvantage the next server, which would discourage players from requesting them on spurious grounds. This might indeed reduce the strategic potential of timeouts slightly, but it falls far short of solving the problem. Players feeling nervous may still feel they have a better chance of holding their serves after a timeout, while a player in a dominant position can lose rhythm and momentum following a delay even when scheduled to receive.

Another proposal is to eliminate timeouts for non-acute injuries, and instead allow players access to unlimited assistance during the normal breaks that occur in matches, at change of ends and between sets. However, timeouts were instituted because sometimes players need treatment for periods longer than the normal breaks. This option risks the same adverse consequences as scrapping on-court medical treatment altogether.

Perhaps the most effective solution would be a point-docking system. If players forfeited just a single point per timeout, that would probably eliminate the temptation to cheat the system, since in tight matches, each point is immensely valuable. The ability to remain fit throughout a match is as just much a skill as having a good backhand. Playing poorly loses you points—so why shouldn’t, in a modest way, getting injured?

Please...I guess you've never played tennis.
When you've got the opponent on the ropes or they have lost their way, the last thing you you want to do is to give them 10 minutes collective themselves and for you you to get distracted in the process. Can you imagine a boxing match where they give an opponent 10 minutes to get the cobwebs out?

Like with a turned ankle or a fall, the player should get a couple minutes to see if they can continue and then give it a go.

"If the doctors treated her, then the question should be why did the doctors treat her if there was no injury."
.
Doctors are not mind readers. If the patient tells the doctor it hurts, how is the doctor supposed to determine she's lying?

"Scrapping on-court medical treatment altogether is not an option."?? Oh yes, it is an option! If you are in no condition to play, the opponent should win by default, as is the case in practically every other sport. They don't stop races when a competitor doesn't feel quite up to par. An expected condition of participating in high end sports is precisely that the athlete should be in peak form. Attaining this peak form is part of the competition, even if it happens off the field. These "medical breathers" are a stain on the respectability of the sport and people are right to disdain players who use them. Those rare players who have a legitimately serious injury would not come back from their little break. That they do return is a clear indication of the frivolousness of the practice.

Li Na showed much greater sportsmanship, respect, manners, humor and humility during the Australian Open than Azarenka did. Li earned more fans with her performance than Azarenka gained detractors, which is no mean feat. Please bury your racist hatchet.

The flow of a basketball game is different. To a great extent, tennis is a test of the mental and physical talent/toughness/fitness of two individuals. Psychological timeouts would like a defender demanding a time out when the other side has gotten behind him with the ball.

This reminds me of the old 'blood sub' in Rugby. In the old days in Rugby, you could only substitute for injury and injuries were faked regularly in order to use tactical substitutions. On one or two occasions they were even caught when it was blatant and razor blades were used on the brow.

This was only solved through allowing tactical substitution. I like the authors idea here, perhaps combined with Pam's: Limit when the break can be taken as she suggests AND your opponent starts 15-0 up in their own set.

Hum Ms. AZARENKA seems to have used all the tools in her power, timeouts, the unsportsmanship and bias of the spectators and a hostile media to power herself to a win. Sounds to me like a winner.

Lets not diminish her accomplishments based on innuendo and by levelling unjust claims against her. If the doctors treated her, then the question should be why did the doctors treat her if there was no injury.

For all practical purposes the same thing happens in Wimbledon daily when rain and wind interrupts play repeatedly, and causes a player to lose momentum. Will this paper argue that Wimbledon should move to indoor stadiums also?

When mother nature intervenes in a sporting event, it is beyond the control of both participants; not the case in this situation.

Ms.A's multiple and diverse explanations post match for the time out makes me think she didn't expect to get called on this and sees this as acceptable behavior. That is where the ruling bodies have to step in and enforce existing rules of play.For the record, Pro tennis players have a very specific time frame to restart the next point in a match and if exceeded, the opponent gets a point.

From the tennis rule book:
RULE 30
Continuous Play and Rest Periods

Play shall be continuous from the first service until the match is concluded, in accordance with the following provisions:

(a) If the first service is a fault, the second service must be struck by the Server without delay.

The Receiver must play to the reasonable pace of the Server and must be ready to receive when the Server is ready to serve.

When changing ends a maximum of one minute thirty seconds shall elapse from the moment the ball goes out of play at the end of the game to the time the ball is struck for the first point of the next game.

The Umpire shall use his discretion when there is interference which makes it impractical for play to be continuous.

The organizers of international circuits and team events recognized by the ITF may determine the time allowed between points, which shall not at any time exceed 20 seconds from the moment the ball goes out of play at the end of one point to the time the ball is struck for the next point.

[USTA Comment: The 20 second rule applies only to certain international circuits and team events recognized by the ITF. When practical, in USTA sanctioned tournaments using a certified official in direct observation of the match, the time which shall elapse from the moment the ball goes out of play at the end of the point to the time the ball is struck shall not exceed 25 seconds.]

(b) Play shall never be suspended, delayed or interfered with for the purpose of enabling a player to recover his strength, breath, or physical condition.

"Every so often, random chance dictates that players will happen to get hurt at a point when a timeout could also provide a strategic advantage". Is chance also "non-random">

Unrelated, but also in the current issue is the article on the Boeing 787 plane's battery woes. Apparently, the batteries can give of inflammable gases that can cause an explosion or fire. If it causes a fire, then it's "flammable".

Match games between two opponents besides the physical conflict have a tremendous psychological battle.
Teams or players go on streaks of points, advantages, errors or fouls.
The Spirit of winning or losing is psychological state.
And players need a well placed timeout
for a pep talk to regather their focus, revise strategy, or assess conditions.
______________________________________
Timeouts are important psychological tools to break a streak and reverse the game.
Some sports have each side allocated a set number of intentional short and long timeouts like basketball.
Knowing when to place a strategic time out is part of good coaching and gamesmenship.
_______________________________________
Injury timeouts are used as well, but they must be justified like a dislocated shoulder or broken bone.
A five year old child should be able to discern the injury.
Migraines do not qualify.
_______________________________________
If psychological timeouts were permitted, then perhaps players would not need to fake a physical ailment.